Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death in women in western countries. More specifically breast cancer claims the lives of approximately 40,000 women and is diagnosed in approximately 200,000 women annually in the United States alone. Over the last few decades, adjuvant systemic therapy has led to markedly improved survival in early breast cancer. This clinical experience has led to consensus recommendations offering adjuvant systemic therapy for the vast majority of breast cancer patients (EBCAG). In breast cancer a multitude of treatment options are available which can be applied in addition to the routinely performed surgical removal of the tumor and subsequent radiation of the tumor bed. Three main and conceptually different strategies are endocrine treatment, chemotherapy and treatment with targeted therapies. Prerequisite for treatment with endocrine agents is expression of hormone receptors in the tumor tissue i.e. either estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor or both. Several endocrine agents with different mode of action and differences in disease outcome when tested in large patient cohorts are available. Tamoxifen has been the mainstay of endocrine treatment for the last three decades. Large clinical trials showed that tamoxifen significantly reduced the risk of tumor recurrence. An additional treatment option is based on aromatase inhibitors which belong to a new endocrine drug class. In contrast to tamoxifen which is a competitive inhibitor of estrogen binding aromatase inhibitors block the production of estrogen itself thereby reducing the growth stimulus for estrogen receptor positive tumor cells. Still, some patients experience a relapse despite endocrine treatment and in particular these patients might benefit from additional therapeutic drugs. Chemotherapy with anthracyclines, taxanes and other agents have been shown to be efficient in reducing disease recurrence in estrogen receptor positive as well as estrogen receptor negative patients. The NSABP-20 study compared tamoxifen alone against tamoxifen plus chemotherapy in node negative estrogen receptor positive patients and showed that the combined treatment was more effective than tamoxifen alone. However, the IBCSG IX study comparing tamoxifen alone against tamoxifen plus chemotherapy failed to show any significant benefit for the addition of cytotoxic agents. Recently, a systemically administered antibody directed against the HER2/neu antigen on the surface of tumor cells have been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence several fold in a patients with Her2neu over expressing tumors. Yet, most if not all of the different drug treatments have numerous potential adverse effects which can severely impair patients' quality of life (Shapiro and Recht, 2001; Ganz et al., 2002). This makes it mandatory to select the treatment strategy on the basis of a careful risk assessment for the individual patient to avoid over-as well as under treatment. Since the benefit of chemotherapy is relatively large in HER2/neu positive and tumors characterized by absence of HER2/neu and estrogen receptor expression (basal type), compared to HER2/neu negative and estrogen receptor positive tumors (luminal type), the most challenging treatment decision concerns luminal tumors for which classical clinical factors like grading, tumor size or lymph node involvement do not provide a clear answer to the question whether to use chemotherapy or not. Newer molecular tools like a 21 gene assay, a genomic grade index assay and others have been developed to address this medical need.
Treatment guidelines are usually developed by renowned experts in the field. In Europe the St Gallen guidelines from the year 2009 recommend chemotherapy to patients with HER2 positive breast cancer as well as to patients with HER2 negative and ER negative disease. Uncertainty about the usefulness of chemotherapy arises in patients with HER2 negative and ER positive disease. In order to make a balanced treatment decision for the individual the likelihood of cancer recurrence is used as the most useful criteria. Clinical criteria like lypmph node status, tumor grading, tumor size and others are helpful since they provide information about the risk of recurrence. More recently, multigene assays have been shown to provide information superior or additional to the standard clinical risk factors. It is generally recognized, that proliferation markers seem to provide the dominant prognostic information. Prominent examples of those predictors are the Mammaprint test from Agendia, the Relapse Score from Veridex and the Genomic Grade Index, developed at the institute Jules Bordet and licensed to Ipsogen. All of these assays are based on determination of the expression levels of at least 70 genes and all have been developed for RNA not heavily degraded by formalin fixation and paraffin embedding, but isolated from fresh tissue (shipped in RNALater™). Another prominent multigene assay is the Recurrence Score test of Genomic Health Inc. The test determines the expression level of 16 cancer related genes and 5 reference genes after RNA extraction from formalin fixed and paraffin embedded tissue samples.
However, the current tools suffer from a lack of clinical validity and utility in the most important clinical risk group, i.e. those breast cancer patients of intermediate risk of recurrence based on standard clinical parameter. Therefore, better tools are needed to optimize treatment decisions based on patient prognosis. For the clinical utility of avoiding chemotherapy, a test with a high sensitivity and high negative predictive value is needed, in order not to undertreat a patient that eventually develops a distant metastasis after surgery. In regard to the continuing need for materials and methods useful in making clinical decisions on adjuvant therapy, the present invention fulfills the need for advanced methods for the prognosis of breast cancer on the basis of readily accessible clinical and experimental data.